[DitV] Escalating in dice but not in the fiction
Noclue:
I'm with Moreno on this one. Escalating on a See is fine, but if you want to use those dice your narration should reflect your moral choice to enter the new arena.
Noclue:
And if you don't want to start shooting (or whatnot), that's what Giving is for.
lumpley:
So do you guys understand that "if you want to use those dice your narration should reflect your moral choice to enter the new arena" is a by-the-book application of the existing escalate-on-a-see rule plus the existing most-discriminating-player rule?
-Vincent
Moreno R.:
Quote from: lumpley on May 25, 2011, 09:45:47 AM
So do you guys understand that "if you want to use those dice your narration should reflect your moral choice to enter the new arena" is a by-the-book application of the existing escalate-on-a-see rule plus the existing most-discriminating-player rule?
-Vincent
Vincent, I completely agree that the way of playing the choice of escalate I explained above is 100% by-the-book. It's the way I played before reading this thread, last year.
It's what you wrote in that thread, and confirmed later, that it's a departure from the rules in the book:
Quoting from your post in that thread (emphasis mine): "seeing a physical raise also means escalating to physical. Dodging a gunshot also means escalating to gunfighting"
In the same thread, replying to my post: you wrote: "acknowledging the gunshot at all -- seeing the raise in any way -- counts as escalating to gunfighting"
No matter what you narrate. You don't need to "reflect" anything. Hell, the way it's written, you get even to bypass the "most-discriminating-player rule"! You get the dice, period.
So, what you said in that (and this) thread is, using the words you used above and changing them to reflect that rule: "if you want to use those dice, you will. You will even if don't want these dice, you will get them anyway. No matter if your narration don't reflect that at all"
The fact that the way I play, as explained above, is 100% by-the-book, it's not in discussion, the way I see it. I know that. And I know that I can simply ignore what you said in an Internet forum and play the way I want. I am simply debating the rule you added in that post, because I see it as a violation of what the original rule system say. Both in spirit and in the "letter of the law".
I get to add another layer of problems this cause to me, too, in my unusual situation of being one of the proof-reader of the Italian edition and one of the people that explain people how to play both at conventions demo and in the Italian forum. What should I teach people? The way I think the game should be played, even if is against what the author said? Or the way the author said it's to be played, even if I think it's a way that remove a lot of "bite" from the conflict rules? It's not simply a matter of "play as you like with your group".
Noclue:
Unless, you're at the table and you're the most discriminating player. The GM is a player too, right?
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page